Some folks might remember Tom Hayden from when he was married to Jane Fonda and was one of the leaders in the organization, Vietnam Veterans against the war. What I remember about him is my dad said he was a communist. I have written at length about John Kerry’s involvement in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam era, but now, being a member of a website called Military.com, with my son in Iraq serving in the army, I am very disturbed to notice Tom Hayden’s presence there. He is smiling, in a suit, and he writes articles. I have written on numerous occasions to the owners of that website to get that traitor off their website. I am on the verge of quitting that website, with the suspicion that it’s funded by somebody like George Soros or one of the 527′s he funds.
There is a long laundry list of reasons that I believe Tom Hayden to be a traitor to America, in addition to Michael Moore. So I’d like to air my thoughts out here, right now.
Tom Hayden wrote an article called “How to End the War in Iraq,” that outlines how to organize an effort to ensure that the United States is defeated in Iraq. The opening sentence:
“The anti-war movement can force the Bush administration to leave Iraq by denying it the funding, troops, and alliances necessary to its strategy for dominance.”
Hayden next lauds the success of the anti-war movement within the Democratic Party and gives proof of its effectiveness.
“The pressure of anti-war voices and the Kerry campaign led Bush to delay the request for a supplemental $75 billion appropriation, the assault on Falluja, and the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi elections until after Nov. 2.”
In other words, giving the enemy breathing room to regroup, delaying democracy for the Iraqi people, and denying our troops the funding they need are all triumphs for the protesters. But it’s not enough. More must be done to make sure that American forces are defeated and forced to withdraw. Why? Because,
“Once the election was over, the Bush administration turned Fallujah into a slaughterhouse.”
Here is enemy propaganda, pure and simple, breathtaking in its utter disregard for the truth about the gangsters who controlled Falluja and videotaped the beheadings of innocent people.
Hayden details his plan for Vietnam-like withdrawal from Iraq.
“The first step is to build pressure at congressional district levels to oppose any further funding or additional troops for war. If members of Congress balk at cutting off all assistance and want to propose ‘conditions’ for further aid, it is a small step toward threatening funding. If only 75 members of Congress go on record against any further funding, that’s a step in the right direction towards the exit.”
To accomplish this, the Democratic Party must be pushed into becoming the anti-war party.
“The progressive activists of the party should refuse to contribute any more resources, volunteers, money, etc. to candidates or incumbents who act as collaborators.”
Note the use of the word “collaborators” – meaning, of course, those who collaborate with the duly elected government of the United States.
OK, persuasion and activism are democratic means, but what are the ends?
“Instead of assuming that the Bush administration has an ‘exit strategy’, the movement needs to force our government to exit.”
Hayden intends for the U.S. not only to exit, but to lose – in no uncertain terms.
” Ending this bloodbath is the most honorable task Americans can perform to restore progressive priorities and our respect in the world. We have passed the point for graceful exit strategies.”
Hayden’s article is scattered with references to Vietnam and Cambodia. Though the wars in Iraq and Vietnam involved different circumstances, the similarities in the anti-war movements are striking. The desired result is identical. As Hayden points out,
“Though most discourse on Vietnam ignores or underplays the factor of dissent within the American armed forces, it was absolutely pivotal to bringing the ground war to an end.”
In other words, one important tactic is to foster dissent, disobedience, and — hopefully — desertion in the American military.
“The movement will need to start opening another underground railroad to havens in Canada for those who refuse to serve,” writes Hayden, “but for now even the most moderate grievances should be supported.”
Hayden has a six-point plan for forcing the U.S. to leave Iraq. He summarizes:
“In short: pinch the funding arteries, push the Democrats to become an opposition party, ally with anti-war Republicans, support dissenting soldiers, make ‘Iraqization’ more difficult, and build a peace coalition against the war coalition. If the politicians are too frightened or ideologically incapable of implementing an exit strategy, the only alternative is for the people to pull the plug.”
Hayden seems to regard “the people” and the politicians they democratically elected as two unrelated entities. At its core, his plan rests on de-funding our soldiers in a combat zone, encouraging mutiny in the armed forces, and preventing the Iraqis from taking democratic control of their own country. All of this is to be accomplished by building a “peace” coalition.
Are these statements and intentions treasonous? Disloyal? Should habeas corpus be suspended so that Michael Moore, Tom Hayden, et al., might be arrested by the dozens and tried by a military tribunal? Of course not, and it’s a far-off prospect in a country where Michael Moore is a multi-millionaire academy award winner, Tom Hayden has been honored with the Medal of Freedom, and John Kerry came within three percentage points of being the next president.
Treason and disloyalty have gone out of fashion as political concepts. More and more, people prefer feeling loyalty to humanity as a whole, rather than to obsolete nation-states. Those who work to undermine the war effort, providing aid and comfort to America’s enemies, do not actually support the establishment of an Islamic caliphate. Rather, they envision a world where states have withered away and we are all citizens of the world, ruled presumably by Kofi Annan (or perhaps Bill Clinton) and the UN Security Council. The United States, by virtue of being the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth, presents the greatest obstacle to this utopian vision. In reality, though, democratic (and dare I say it, capitalist) nation-states in general — and the United States in particular — are the only guarantors of peace and freedom that we have at present.
What is to be done? Mass arrests cannot be the answer; we must not destroy a nation founded on individual liberty in order to save it. Instead, we must rejuvenate the meaning of words like patriotism, loyalty, and treason. Those who believe in national self-defense have every right to use these forgotten words in public speech — and to apply them to those for whom the shoe fits. If Tom Hayden and Michael Moore speak freely in support of America’s destruction, their fellow citizens must have equal freedom to call them what they are: traitors and the enemies of a free America.
Treason is really not that difficult to define. Treason is when your country is at war and you want the other side to win. (Of course, to be legally guilty of treason you have to commit overt acts. What I want to focus on, however, is the moral attitude of treason, which can — but does not necessarily have to — lead to such acts.)
Are there such people in America? Michael Moore comes to mind. Moore is on record saying that the terrorists in Iraq who are beheading our citizens and are killing our soldiers are “not terrorists.” According to Moore, they are “patriots” and — in his words — “they will win.” Michael Moore is rooting for the enemy. That’s just a fact. But what are the consequences? Treason has made Michael Moore rich. Moore has rooted for the enemy all his life – in the Cold War, and now in the War on Terror, without adverse effect on his career and fortune. In fact the opposite could be said to be true.
And so have the leaders of the so-called peace demonstrations opposing the war. These national “mobilizations” were organized and led by activists who rooted for the Communist enemy in the Cold War, and then marched to undermine America’s effort and to save Saddam Hussein in the War on Terror. It should be obvious that these are not people for whom “peace” is a high priority. There were no demonstrations at the Iraqi embassy to get Saddam to disarm, just as there were no demonstrations against the genocide the Communists carried out in Indo-China after America withdrew. The priority of the leftists who organized the anti-war demonstrations during Vietnam and the anti-war demonstrations with respect to Iraq is the same: whatever the war, America should lose.
Ever since the 1980s when Michael Moore was fired from his position as editor of the leftwing magazine Mother Jones, he has been an interesting man to watch. What got Moore fired was that he censored an article about Nicaragua by the socialist Paul Berman because it was mildly critical of the Sandinista dictatorship. Moore was too much of a Stalinist even for the leftists at Mother Jones. As a Marxist who believes that America is an imperialist leviathan run by evil corporations, Michael Moore is a self-conceived enemy of America. Michael Moore denies that there is a War on Terror. Of course he does. In his eyes, America is an aggressor responsible for the attacks upon itself. America is the root cause of the War on Terror. This is the view shared by many people on the political left and by most of the people who marched in the “anti-war” demonstrations. This is their credo. It is what they believe.
Understand now where we are as a nation. Michael Moore’s famous and widely viewed film, Farenheit 911, presents Iraq as a peaceful, even idyllic country cruelly invaded by a callous and deceitful invader, which is us. The opening of this anti-American propaganda film was attended by the leader of the political opposition, Terry McAuliffe, and by senators Clinton, Daschle, and Harkin, among many other celebrating Democrats. You can see how far we have slipped morally in this country, when the leaders of one its two great parties regard any attack on the sitting commander-in-chief as legitimate and don’t take our enemies seriously.
If you really think about the issue of “treason,” you will realize that it doesn’t really end with the label itself, which is why the defensiveness of the left over the use of the term to describe actual traitors is disingenuous and just bad faith. When pressed on the issue, leftists will be the first to point out that our founders, after all, were traitors, too; that it was Benjamin Franklin who famously said, “If this be treason, let’s make the most of it.” In America, the founding principles form the nation first, and only secondarily the ties of blood and soil. If America is indeed the greatest terrorist state, as Moore and his leftist friends proclaim, if America is an imperialist monster, then America has betrayed its founding principle of liberty. And if that is the case, loyalty to America would demand that a true patriot commit acts of treason in order to keep the American faith. Loyalty to humanity is treason to America. This is the code that leftists like Michael Moore consciously live by.
To get a proper perspective on the issue of treason in an American context you have to first decide in your own minds whether this nation has really betrayed its founding and is worthy of destruction. If it is, then you can embrace Michael Moore and join the political left, and be comfortable with your choice. If it isn’t, you’d better think twice about what they are up to. And then, figure out what you’re going to do about it.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
